October 31, 2006

The John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" story is dominating the news today. It's rather unfair to the Democrats who are actually running in the election. I'd love to hear the behind-the-scenes cursing he so richly deserves. (And let me add that Kerry is outrageously lying when he says he wasn't referring to the troops. This is only prolonging his time in the spotlight, when he should get out of the way and let actual candidates speak.)

I'm sorry, Ann, but he was obviously referring to Bush. The preceding comments were all about Bush's incompetence and denial. He wasn't really trying to encourage students to do well so they won't have to enlist. "Outrageously lying"? Please.

I think the biggest problem the Democrat's have right now is their tendency to circle the wagons whenever one of their own is attacked.

I think this is a great opportunity for a number of Sister Souljah moments (man, there's a woman whose career has peaked) in Congressional districts all over. I think doing so would secure the Dem's the independent vote, the guys who want to punish the Republicans but just aren't sure they can trust the Democrat's not to all turn into John Murtha's.

Ann, I think that the ultimate in conclusory statements, i.e., that Kerry was "outrageously lying" requires some support. On what do you base that, other than your well documented loathing of John Kerry? Have you looked at the context in which he made that comment? Or was your reaction a reflex?

Ann, have you read the section of the speech that contained these comments? If not, what's the basis of your knowledge that he was "outrageously lying?" You're risking your credibility (or should I say plausible denyability) with bald assertions like that.

The preceding comments were all about Bush's incompetence and denial. He wasn't really trying to encourage students to do well so they won't have to enlist.

I would be willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt regarding this, but for all the other disparaging statements Kerry has made in his life about the troops. His remarks are a huge political mistake. He reminds us of what the Democrats think about the military.

Really though.... how can Kerry's remarks mean anything about Bush....maybe you could argue that if Kerry was in charge the "dumb asses in the military (as Kerry would say) would at least be at home waiting to be attacked rather than in Iraq.

When I first heard of the possibility that the joke was a mangled attempt to malign Bush, I was willing to believe it. In fact I still am. I mean, as stated, it is quite categorical in identifying the object of its ridicule: so much so that the context is irrelevant. But, at least the explanation itself is consistent with the context.

Then he had his Captain Queeg press conference.

After that, I frankly don't give a rats ass what his true motivation was. He wasn't even man enough to apologize for the misunderstanding! He said that anyone who would think he was maligning the troops was crazy. That would include many members of the military! Well, congratulations Kerry, you did it again.

At this point he deserves everything he gets. He could have apologized humbly, and even followed it up with his standard Iraq policy objections, and it could have stopped the bleeding. But he chose not to, so there's nobody to blame but him here.

So yes, I'm saying I don't care anymore if the mangled joke excuse is true. He's lost his opportunity to convince me he deserves grace.

The man is very quotable, you have to give him that. "I owe an apology to no one" will be the most memorable line of the 2006 campaign, just as "I voted for the $80 billion before I voted against it," and "Reporting for duty!" were in 2004.

I realize that in his mind, he was probably trying to take a shot at Bush, and that it came out screwy. We all do that. So then, why NOT apologize? What, other than the man's monumental vanity, kept him from saying "I'm sorry if what I said was misconstrued."

The preface to the remarks that I heard was all about education. It's charitable to Kerry to say it was "obviously" about Bush.

What I assume will happen now is that Dem candidates all over the country will be asked to "disavow" Kerry's remarks. Second news cycle consumed. Then, finally, the stupid prick will realize he really should apologize, and will do so. Third news cycle consumed. There aren't that many left.

If Democrats like John Kerry, Max Cleland, Wes Clark, John Murtha, Jim Webb and the countless other Democrats in Iraq currently hate the military so much, why did/do they volunteer to go? Are they just insane masochists with a deathwish?

For doyle, gj, and all the others trying to defend Kerry, the problem with his claim that he was trying to make a joke about Bush is that his claim does not make any sense. The context of his remarks was he was talking to college students and stressing the importance of getting a good education. His argument was, in essence: If you do well in school, something good happens (get a good job). If you don't, something bad happens (you go to Iraq). Even if you accept his claim he intended the second half of that couplet to be a slam on Bush, his joke makes no sense in the context of encouraging kids to do well in school. The reworked argument becomes: If you do well in school, something good happens (get a good job). If you don't, something bad happens (you become President of the USA). Yea. That'll scare the kids into doing well in school!

his joke makes no sense in the context of encouraging kids to do well in school.

Of course it does. "Go to school so you won't be as dumb as the president." It's not especially funny, but neither is the idea that it's largely the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder that dies in wars, which would be the premise of the other (I claim nonexistent) joke.

To repeat, I've seen the video of the whole context, and it's obvious what he was saying. His attempt to interpret it away is outrageous. It only makes it worse. I know exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of thing that antiwar people say, that the volunteer military is full of unfortunate, deluded souls.

I think Ann is right that Kerry was slighting the troops. But I also think Kerry had prepared his response to the White House before he did so. And I think he used an ambiguous phrasing so that the White House would catapult him into the spotlight.

This is Kerry's Clinton Fox News moment: instant WaPo and NYT coverage, bickering with Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh, and President Bush, drawing out John McCain, and he's putting out really nasty stuff about the GOP that's red meat for nutty liberals who hate the military.

There is some value to the Democrats of Kerry's attacks on Bush and Snow. There is some value to their get out the vote operation. (Frankly, smart Democrats in close races could denounce Kerry to present themselves as legitimate centrists...) And, of course, there is Kerry stealing spotlight from Hillary on the national stage.

He might hurt 2006. But if the Democrats taking over is "inevitable" anyway, then he can claim that standing up to Bush was part of the reason why. He can say he energized the base. LOL.

So, I'm not so sure Kerry made an accident. It might backfire, but I think it was purposeful. In short, I think everyone's theories behind his motives are correct (except those who say he didn't intend to slight the troops).

Doyle sparked me to think of something. If I were a Democratic political consultant or talking head, I'd push the idea that his statements were "all within the context of how this Bush Presidency thinks. He made remarks that I don't agree with, and feel were inappropriate. He was referring to the Bush mentality. I think John Kerry should consider his sentences more closely, but in no way was this a blast at the troops. I thinks he feels that this current path we are on leads to another Vietnam, another draft."

I think it's all just a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse, Sean Hannity, and the entire right blogosphere's version of the events are exactly the same. This, over the person that made the statement.

Just because their version of what was in Kerry's head, benefits their side in their view, has nothing to do with it.

To me, the best strategy for the Democrats is to put enormous pressure on Kerry to apologize very soon.

If he doesn’t, then cut him loose. Other Democrats should feel free to criticize him publicly.

I’m really not sure about the best way to interpret what Kerry said, but I do most definitely know what he said sounded like.

And it sounded like something awful. And what it sounded like is not at all representative of today’s Democratic Party.

No matter what, the Democratic Party should not be held responsible for Kerry’s awful remark. The Democratic Party has become more diverse and more moderate in recent years. I can’t think of another elected Democratic official who would condone what Kerry seemed to say.

Outrageous is claiming that because you, along with the rest of us, saw the video, the intepretation that the joke was directed at Bush is obviously the wrong one. Even tonight's Republican strategist on Hardball admitted it's possible that's what he was trying to say.

Yes, the soldiers who are fighting and getting killed in Iraq are disproportionately non-college graduates, but that doesn't mean that even an America-hating Democrat would insult them for it. I mean who among us doesn't at least pay lip service to supporting the troops?

Doyle, Bush reportedly got better grades in school than did Kerry. So, the only way for his 'joke' to be funny or even sane, would have been in a self-deprecating way with Bush the one getting good grades, and he (Kerry) bad grades. Bush President, Kerry not. Funny.

But the above is moot point. Kerry said what he wanted to say. His statement and resultant lack of mea culpa fits his M.O., his history, and unfortunately, many in his party like a glove.

Also, Kerry is the pentultimate Democrat. He was their ultimate candidate and undoubtedly wants to be again. The furor over Kerry's statements are part of the price the other candidates pay for being Democrats.

Mr. Kerry said that he botched a joke that his aides said had been prepared as follows: “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”(NYTIMES)

To me, the best strategy for the Democrats is to put enormous pressure on Kerry to apologize very soon.

There's a lot of astute political thinking going on in this thread.

Surely it would be better for Kerry to admit that he was casting aspersions on our men and women in uniform, and apologize to them publicly. That would be much better than digging in and hitting back at the right wing warmongers, especially given the lessons of the Swift Boat Veterans.

One commenter above asks, "what's the basis of your knowledge that he was 'outrageously lying'?"

Actually, this study seems to say he was lying, and that the average enlistee is slightly wealthier and better educated than his peers:

"In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) sup­port the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight dif­ferences are that wartime U.S. mil­itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver­age than their civilian peers."

Kerry just said the uncomfortable truth. The ninnies running this war were running from war and duty when it was their time. Rumsfeld had more important things to do, Bush had his drinking to attend to and so on for the rest of the gang.

Kerry didn't back off when he could have. These ninnies do not deserve any breaks for they have never respected the soldiers and wasted their blood and lives without so much as losing sleep. They do not even have the courage to say that they made a mistake about the weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the fairly tale lives on.

JohnF: you are truly out of it. The question is whether Kerry was lying about his explanation that he was referring to Bush and not the troops.......NOT whether the troops are truly less educated. Get a clue.

If Democrats like John Kerry, Max Cleland, Wes Clark, John Murtha, Jim Webb and the countless other Democrats in Iraq currently hate the military so much, why did/do they volunteer to go?

via Powerline:

"Why are liberals so determined to hang on to these discredited stereotypes of the past? I suspect it is because the young men and women who serve in the armed forces are a constant reproach to liberals' facile, politically-motivated pronouncements on foreign policy. Iraq is a disaster (never mind that I voted for it)! But the young men and women who are stationed there don't think so. They re-enlist in remarkable numbers; a large majority beieve in their mission; and they are working hard, risking their lives, and making considerable progress on many fronts. So it's helpful for liberals to think: what do they know? They're only soldiers--they must be dumb!"

I'm especially amused that Kerry doesn't have the honor to step up and retract his remarks. "It was a botched joke...if anyone should apologize, it should be Bush for misleading us into an illegal war for oil haliburton haliburton haliburton blah blah blah."

What a loser.

Doyle: "Go to school so you won't be as dumb as the president."

Except Kerry did, and his GPA was still lower than Bush's. His only claim to success is from marrying rich widows. I hear he's stalking Arafat's widow now.

LOL. Kerry deliberately chose an "in the rear with the gear" billet that he thought would include surfing and beachball. He admits as much. And when the Swiftboats were re-tasked to dangerous riverine ops, he faked his wounds to get out. He's a fraud.

For the record, this was a public campaign event for Phil Angelides, who is running for Governor of California (and running way behind)and meant to attract attention to Angelides, not Kerry. It was meant to gain much-needed attention for Angelides on the local news stations. (Fat lot of good that did.)

Fenris: LOL. Really, no, you don't know what it means. Nice try -- you are warm -- I'll give you that. It means something that does not follow from the preceding statement. Not a "rhetorical fallacy. Sorry.

It is a classic illustration of Mickey Kaus' cocooning metaphor. Reading Nagourney and Rutenberg, you'd have to conclude that Kerry slandered the troops in Iraq deliberately, as part of a clever scheme to lure Bush out of the White House to talk about that unpopular war -- at a time, by golly, when even a staunch Republican like Lincoln Chaffee has been criticizing it.

The Kerry quote itself appears deep in the text of the story. If you knew nothing about what has transpired, which the NY Times is obviously counting on, you'd think that dumb idiot Bush just decided that, because campaigning against Kerry was such a good deal in 2004, he'd give it another try in 2006.

Democrats, please, some friendly advice: Do not believe this crap. Campaign like the Kerry quote was extremely damaging. Because it was.

DCWilly: LOL. Really, no, you don't know what it means. Nice try -- you are warm -- I'll give you that. It means something that does not follow from the preceding statement. Not a "rhetorical fallacy. Sorry.

You just outed yourself as an idiot. If you have a degree you should ask for a refund. Ad hominems and non-sequiters are classified as rhetorical fallacies. Look it up.

I would add that your resort to personal attacks reveals you lack the intelligence to engage in debate. You're covering for you shortcomings. But thanks for playing.

The problem Democrats have is that the Democratic party has no national defense credentials. They have to peddle out veterans and "war heroes" to jam their phoney hawkish views at voters. They have a few tokens left over from a bygone era such was Jim Webb. However, most democrats and most of their constituents remain doves. Kerry's remarks are just another example and reminder to voters who are worried about the security of the United States. If Democrats despise the troops, how can we expect them to lead the troops.

Putting the spotlight on Kerry for the next week will remind voters, especially independents that Democrats are weak. A great example is the detainee bill...the so called "torture" bill. Many people say they vehemently oppose torture and would always say so... however, who would you want on your side if your life depended on it - a guy who would consider torturing as a last resort... or someone who has "principles." regardless of your life. Most people pick the first guy and there are a lot more first guys in the Republican party.

I'll assume you're too disingenuous or stupid, and do your research for you:

English 106-053

Rhetorical Fallacies: In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good understanding of rhetoric must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous faculties of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are the following:

Ad hominem: Latin for “to the man”: attacking the arguer and not the argument.

[...]

Non sequitur: Latin for “It doesn’t follow.” Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities.

Like I said, if all you've got is Maybe if you went to school you would know what non-sequitur means., then you should ask your college for a refund. You were conned.

If Democrats despise the troops, how can we expect them to lead the troops[?]

If Democrats despised the troops, they wouldn't be criticizing the Iraq War. You couldn't come up with a worse punishment than sending them into Iraq and telling them to sit tight until the Shia and Sunnis work out their differences.

I don't think he's lying, and I don't think he meant the troops. It's worse than that. The guy had a joke, was loaded and ready to go, and misfired. He's a klutz and a screwup. There's only one good thing that will come of this: Kerry will not get the nomination in 2008. I hope it means he won't even get enough support to consider running again. If this is his swan song, I'm happy. Democrats ought to be saying as much right now: if he said what he meant to say, he's an idiot. If he meant to say what he claims, he's a dud.

Since Phil Angelides was the reason Sen. Kerry was speaking at PCC it could reasonably be assumed that Angelides would defend Kerry. But that particular fig leaf has not been offered and Angelides has become deathly quiet on the issue.

I know exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of thing that antiwar people say, that the volunteer military is full of unfortunate, deluded souls.

I have to disagree, Ann. I'm anti-Iraq, not anti-war in general. I grew up in a military family, members of my family currently serve, and I have no such beliefs about who enlists in the military. I teach excellent students who are in the military or reserves.

It's true that the military is an effective vehicle for upward mobility and a logical choice for working or lower-economic class people who want help paying for their education or job skills, but not only is it more diverse than that, it would be foolish to argue that lower-economic class translates into too dumb to do anything but join the military.

I can't know Kerry's motivations, but I sure can say that opposing this war is not synonymous with patronizing or despising our armed forces.

Has *anyone* ever heard those words before, when discussing our troops and their background? Or young people in general.

Yes, we have. For years, critics of the military have claimed that only the poorest and dumbest serve. (Indeed, doyle, in this comment thread has twice come very close to saying this is very thing.) Rangle in 2004 was calling for a draft, in part, so the human cost of the war would not be borne entirely by the poor. Democrats are frequently saying that our troops are victims of Bush's policies. Since the majority of the military has joined or reenlisted since the start of the war, the clear implication is that the troops are just too stupid to know any better. (This is similar to the common refrain that the poor and middle class are voting against their self-interest by voting for Republicans. Again, the implication is that these voters are too stupid to know what's good for them.)

So, yes, it was entirely plausible to believe Kerry meant what he said. It was the kind of thing politicians said to students during Vietnam. Most of what Kerry says is simply an echo of those years, so it's not unreasonable to believe he still feels that way.

Reading Nagourney and Rutenberg, you'd have to conclude that Kerry slandered the troops in Iraq deliberately, as part of a clever scheme to lure Bush out of the White House to talk about that unpopular war

Hey, I'm a Bush supporter, and I think that's an accurate read. I also think that Bush & Co. relied on Krauthammer's op-ed to extricate themselves from the Miers debacle.

You cannot be reasonable and think Kerry just wanted to help the nerd running against Arnold. Everyone knows scrawny Phil has no shot. At the very least he was campaigning in CA for 2008. At the most, he was doing exactly what the NYT's suggests, which really isn't a loopy theory at all, because Kerry values his own 2008 run more than Democratic control of Congress.

What centrist Democrats running in close races need to do is denounce Kerry (or demand that he apologize) and side with the troops. They need to face the fact that Kerry is a mercenary who is only out for himself and use it to distinguish themselves from the strident antiwar position (which they claim not to support anyhow).

I just find this whole situation amusing! Do you really think Kerry just made an accident so close to Eelection Day? Be more cynical, folks!

I believe that Kerry just made a mistake in the wording of his "joke". But what a crass "joke" for a former presidential candidate to make! He basically says that Bush is stupid, intellectually lazy, and a poor student. It's one thing for the Democratic partisans, the students, the bloggers, and so on to say stuff like that. It's another for a man who's supposed to have some statesmanlike gravitas, some dignity. I agree with the comment that Bush has never said anything that crude about an opponent.

Of course someone will point out the Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, say crude stuff - true, but they are not statesmen and don't presume to be.

So it's kind of satisfying that Kerry made a blooper that happens to play exactly into the stereotype of liberal contempt for servicemen. He really didn't intend it as an insult to servicemen, but it came out that way, and it was poetic justice that it did.

If he'd give up insulting people and discuss issues, it wouldn't have been a problem. And then he makes it worse by WAY over-reacting to it.

During the recent Lebanon war, there was a great Israeli commentary reviewing something said in the always pro-Arab Guardian, taking it apart, but, in the end offering congratulations to the clever propaganda effort for the Israelis, the Guardian's remarks subtly revealing that it's position was that of a buffoon, and that the reporter would get their Israeli medal in a secret ceremony at the end of the conflict. Heh, you know John doesn't have the Medal of Freedom. Reporting for Medal (duty by the paperwork) again, ehh John!

Doyle: If Democrats despised the troops, they wouldn't be criticizing the Iraq War.

The only reason Democrats criticize the Iraq war is to gain political traction - to weaken the Foreign Policy and National Security cards that the GOP has trumped them with so many times in the past.

Consider: We still have troops in harms way in Kosovo, placed there by a Dem president. Silence from the Left on that one.

Also: The Iraqi Liberation Act, signed and championed by Clinton. Bush's liberation of Iraq is merely putting action to Clinton's words [he never funded or followed up on it, likely b/c Dems don't really believe in the things they lecture us about].

You'll have to find another reason why Dems attack our troops. I still think Powerline has nailed it:

"Why are liberals so determined to hang on to these discredited stereotypes of the past? I suspect it is because the young men and women who serve in the armed forces are a constant reproach to liberals' facile, politically-motivated pronouncements on foreign policy. Iraq is a disaster (never mind that I voted for it)! But the young men and women who are stationed there don't think so. They re-enlist in remarkable numbers; a large majority beieve in their mission; and they are working hard, risking their lives, and making considerable progress on many fronts. So it's helpful for liberals to think: what do they know? They're only soldiers--they must be dumb!"

Fits the pattern - the Dems pull the same stunt on blacks that have "left the plantation". And women in power that don't supplicate to NOW.

hmmmm.. in your effort to spin a mangled joke beyond logic, i humbly guide you to this nonpartisan website to let you know which party really supports our troops, and the veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan.

Oh, and I love that Kerry just made himself the national Democrat poster boy for the last week of the election. Just what the Democrats needed - everyone identifying Kerry with the Democrats again. Now all they need to do is get Jimmy Carter, Monica Lewinsky, and maybe Michael Dukakis in his tank helmet out there on the front pages and they'll have managed to botch up yet another election cycle.

Kerry will stay in the news and keep making comments in the press -- this story is going to continue until Nov. 7th. Reporters are going to keep bugging Democrats about it.

The only thing for centrist Democrats to do is get out ahead of it and denounce Kerry. They'll have a much larger megaphone than they would have had otherwise, and a ripe shot at appealing to independents by denouncing Kerry.

It will certainly blunt/make incredible attacks that attempt to show Candidate X is weak by tying him/her to Kerry if s/he denounced Kerry all over the press.

Plus, now turnout on both sides is going to be absolutely massive and the election may be national, instead of local as many Republicans would prefer.

I've never heard "intellectually lazy" when describing the backgrounds of our troops. This is why I think alot of people are way out ahead of this. He was clearly talking about Bush, (as he was before this remark!)

If you're intellectually lazy, (Bush) you will get stuck in Iraq (which we are)

One more thing: Even if Kerry meant to say something different, he should own up to what he said and apologize. Unlike all the Republicans and Democrats who have said things that, from certain angles might seem to be insulting to some group or another (recall the outrage over Romney's use of the term "tar-baby"?), Kerry actually said something that cannot be understood in any way other than as an insult. The best he can claim is that he meant to say something else -- but he needs to apologize for what he did say.

I don't think your brand of liberal spin is going to work. But I will say that Kerry was throwing out red meat for the likes of you! You're sure to vote now! And indignantly, too! Go DailyKos! [racuous laughter]

Yeah, but if centrist Democrats in close races rally around Kerry and his lie about not intentionally slighting the troops, they will lose terribly. They're just going to have to step up and agree with McCain and the head of the American Legion if they want to win. And I suspect they're debating how to do that without offending Kerry (and antiwar stalwarts) too much...uh, right this minute.

Funny how people can "know exactly what he was saying" when conservatives like Dick Armey (former majority leader), Matthew Dowd (Bush's pollster in 2004), as well as prominent centrists such as David Gergen, are saying that Kerry was referring to Bush. I think it's absurd to think that Kerry wanted to say something so stupid about the troops; call Kerry all you want, but he's not an idiot.

On the political side, I think this hype over Kerry's comments will backfire on Republicans. Kerry is not running; all this controversy does is it puts the focus on Iraq thus nationalizing the elections. This is the last thing the GOP should want; on the other hand, given that the elections are going to be nationalized anyway, it's not surprising that they are so desperate. Either way, it's not going to help them.

And the distancing begins. welcome to the new media cycle, via Powerline:

"UPDATE: Kerry will attend a DFL fundraiser at the St. Paul Hotel at 8:30 tomorrow morning. At noon, he will be in Mankato with Democrat Tim Wald at a "veterans' rally." That should be something to see! It would be nice if some protesters, veterans and others, turn up at these events.

This is Kerry's Clinton Fox News momentThis is exactly what I was thinking. Faux Anger. But Kerry isn't anywhere near the politician Clinton is.

I think it's all just a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse, Sean Hannity, and the entire right blogosphere's version of the events are exactly the same. Huh? The version that takes the actual words that he said at face value? I would like to see the full transcript, though. But I don't see any easy way to make that mean what Kerry thinks it means.

Other Democrats should feel free to criticize him publicly.And they would look SO good doing it! "We have a highly education military, full of excellent men and women...[lead directly into Bring the Troops home, fight the war with competence, talking points]

Even tonight's Republican strategist on Hardball admitted it's possible that's what he was trying to sayEven if you give him the generous benefit of the doubt, it was still a thoroughly idiot thing to say. If this man weren't a Demcrat in Massachusettes, I don't think he could get elected dog catcher.

As for the "lying" comments, I would prefer that word be retired from the public sphere for about 5 years, as some people (not ann) have forgotten what it means and been misusing it for years.

Kerry deliberately chose an "in the rear with the gear" billet that he thought would include surfing and beachball. He admits as much. And there is nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is to have done that and then run around proudly talking about how you volunteered. Alot of people in that generation signed up for the guard, in hopes that they wouldn't die. That's ok.

Just lay off the other people who did similar things, instead of cloaking yourself in self-righteousness.

The problem Democrats have is that the Democratic party has no national defense credentials.Right. And Kerry decided it would be a good idea to remind everybody why. Idiot.

Problem is those denouncements won't be unequivocal. They'll find a way to slip in a Bush jab and come across as phoney.

That's actually a great point. If they do that, you're absolutely right.

This is why I noted before that the best thing for Democrats to do is attack Kerry for degrading the troops during wartime while Kerry refuses to apologize and keeps attacking Bush for "distorting" his comments.

I think it can be safely done, though, without jabbing Bush, by simply agreeing with John McCain and the head of the American Legion. It's gonna take more than canceling events. It requires an explicit statement. They can't be coy.

"UPDATE: Kerry will attend a DFL fundraiser at the St. Paul Hotel at 8:30 tomorrow morning. At noon, he will be in Mankato with Democrat Tim Wald at a "veterans' rally." That should be something to see! It would be nice if some protesters, veterans and others, turn up at these events.

Mortimer: Santorum is toast - he is basically losing to "None of the Above."

Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking. To be honest, I was very impressed with his work on Social Security; he really did put all options on the table, master the subject matter, and try to implement change that would be good for our future. Very sad. He's an excellent Senator. One of the few guys not in it for the cash. Sad that he goes down with "culture of corruption".

call Kerry all you want, but he's not an idiot. I think he's an idiot. At least, he's not a good politician. I will enjoy seeing the democratic reaction to this. I don't think they're going to be circling the wagons this time.

Edward: It is not about people people changing votes (although some will). The name of the game is turnout. This late in the game, it is unwise to wave red meat around previously apathetic / dispirited supporters of one's opponents - they may bite.

I think you're falsely assuming Kerry's interests are aligned with those of other Democrats. He likes hogging the antiwar lefty spotlight to bicker with Bush. That is great for Kerry. How else is he going to run to the left of Hillary and beat Russ Feingold in 2008?

Santorum is the absolute worst Senator Pennsylvanians have burdened themselves with in my memory. Maybe Joseph Clark was worse, given his embrace of gun control in a state where hunting is everywhere. Maybe Santorum'd be better if he actually, you know, lived in Pennsylvania. Did he ever pay back the Penn Hills School District for the money he essentially stole from them?

This is why I think alot of people are way out ahead of this. He was clearly talking about Bush, (as he was before this remark!)

You'll have to explain to me how this "red meat" was meant to help the Dems. The Bush is an idiot meme is stale. Its not like the Dem base hasn't been chuckling over it for the last 6 years. I think Kerry had an AlGore moment and is trying to cover with his "botched joke" lie. But it doesn't really matter, the public sees it as an insult directed at their sons and daugters:

Donald Sensing via Instapundit: In about 30 minutes I wll leave to attend the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Richard Buerstetta, killed in action in Iraq two weekends ago. He was a2004 graduate of Franklin High School, where both my sons knew him. He and my eldest son were actually scehduled to go to boot camp at Parris Island, SC, the same day, but a change by their recruiter sent them on different days. Lance Cpl. Buerstetta was a Marine reservist, enrolled in college at Middle Tennessee State University, when his callup came. Without a flicker of hesitation at being yanked from his college courses, he shouldered his seabags and went off to war. “His bags stayed packed,” according to a family member. He died about a month after arriving in Iraq.

Got that? High school graduate. College student. US Marine. Iraq. . . .

I dare you, Senator Kerry, to come to Lance Cpl. Buerstetta’s funeral and tell that to his parents. Tell them that their son, high school graduate, college student, was just too uneducated and too stupid to avoid enlisting in an all-volunteer military.

But you can't ignore that lefty antiwar people might be ginned up a bit, too. Democrats are scared their GOTV isn't as good as the Republicans'. Kerry's comment could have been directed at African-Americans, whose turnout Dems are worried about. In general, the black community hates the war and believes most of the people sucked into serving in the military are at least poor, if not poor minorities.

1. Is it not funny how some insist that Ms. Althouse is "far right"? It certainly explains the NYT explanation that Lamont's primary win was a victory for moderates.

2. Doyle, et al:

Let us assume that the joke was intended to be at the President"s expense. I think it is fair to say that those who have studied the evidence find that President Bush, Senator Kerry, and even Mr. Gore are all men of above average intelligence. Clearly Mr. Bush's strength would not be his verbal skills.

Still, for a mediocre student and legislator such as Mr. Kerry to make light of the scholastic achievements and intellectual capacity of another whose achievements and capacity meet or exceed his own would seem to indicate a severe deficit of wit on the part of Mr. Kerry.

At best, Kerry's "joke" was a weak re-hash of the same old Democrat insult to most successful Republicans (Reagan-stupid; Ford-stupid; Quayle-stupid). They also have the "evil" variant notably used against Nixon but most recently against Cheney and Guilliani.

So, giving the benefit of the doubt to Senator Kerry he was trying to tell the same lame joke about the President that the DU crowd has now told about a million times. In addition, he could not properly deliver it. Giving him the benefit of the doubt doesn't make him look very good.

Here is another way to view Senator Kerry while buying his explanation. While Bill Clinton was in office did Mr. Bush or Mr. Dole ever tell any Monica jokes at public events? How about cheating at golf jokes?

Turnout among conservatives will increase only if they think that control of Congress should be decided on the basis of one stupid remark by John Kerry.

Many conservatives have been planning to stay home on Election Day, because they realize (correctly) that Republicans no longer deserve control of Congress, due to their gross mismanagement.

One stupid remark by John Kerry is not going to make these conservatives suddenly forget all the Republican scandals, all the Republican financial mismanagement, and all the Republican negligence in providing oversight of Bush’s war.

Actually, now that I think about it, the "effort to be smart" comments are probably signs of Kerry's inept pandering at the black community, which cares strongly about education, oft conceives of the military as a racist deathtrap, and hates the Iraq War.

One stupid remark by John Kerry is not going to make these conservatives suddenly forget all the Republican scandals

No, but it will remind them of the Shape of Things to Come if Kerry's ilk regain control of congress.

Thats always been the Left's problem: we are ticked at our congress-critters, and want to toss them out, until we see the Democrat alternative. The old joke was "the only way Republicans will lose is if they run unopposed". Now its back in play.

Spin it how you want, Kerry just fumbled at the 40 yard line. I'm pretty sure Rove knows how to drive this into the endzone. We'll see.

Rob, there is another way to look at it: Kerry meant to tell the joke, but the joke was so close to what he really thinks that what he said is what he thought but not what he meant. I think most people call that a Freudian slip, and that most people will think that is exactly what happened if he persists with the joke defense.

Fenrisulven - LOL. Kerry deliberately chose an "in the rear with the gear" billet that he thought would include surfing and beachball. He admits as much. And when the Swiftboats were re-tasked to dangerous riverine ops, he faked his wounds to get out. He's a fraud.

And after he got out, he began meeting with the enemy and trashing the troops in public, while casting himself as the Patrician Anti-Hero. His latest - "Don't be lazy or stupid or you could end up stuck as a grunt in Viet...err...Iraq.." follows a long line of direct and oblique attacks on the fitness and moral character of the Jenjiiiis Khaaahns.

Doyle: "Go to school so you won't be as dumb as the president."

Fenris: Except Kerry did, and his GPA was still lower than Bush's. His only claim to success is from marrying rich widows. I hear he's stalking Arafat's widow now.

OK, that laugh I let out might have scared off the last bunch of trick or treaters... "Yoo hoo! Mrs Arafat, it sure gets lonely in Paris on such a lovely fall day. Though it reminds me of the color of sunset in Cambodia..or your lovely camel fur colored eyes..."

Just a Lawyer Shill - The ninnies running this war were running from war and duty when it was their time. Rumsfeld had more important things to do, Bush had his drinking to attend to and so on for the rest of the gang.

Bush was an F-102 pilot. Ranked as the 3rd most dangerous fighterjet aircraft the US ever flew. 25-28 times more risky per flight hour than the F-16. Nuclear weapons qualified. Assigned nuclear or conventional missile intercept of Soviet bombers flying out of Cuba.

Rumsfeld was one of the top dozen carrier aviation officers of his time. Qualified everything. Flight instructor.

I'm willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and assume he's still nothing more than a tin-eared boob. Then again, let's just remember the people who nominated his for the Presidency could well control Congress in a few months... don't know about you, but if I was a swing voter in a margin of error race, I'd be muttering 'a plague on all your houses' and staying home. And that can't be good for the Dems.

Kerry’s stupid remark is no more an “accurate indication” of what the Democratic leadership will do if (when) they take control of Congress than the new and phony Republican commitment to clean government and oversight of Bush’s failed war are an accurate indication of what their leadership will do if, by some miracle, they manage to keep control of Congress.

Ann Althouse can read minds. That's why she can say Kerry was "lying" when he says he was talking about Bush.

Even Dick Armey and Matthew Dowd think Kerry meant Bush.

But that Ann? She knows better. She knows John Kerry thinks the troops are stupid.

She knows that Kerry doesn't use this applause line everywhere he goes, and just muffed it.

"I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." - Senator John Kerry

I'm surprised at the number of people who don't believe Kerry's explanation for his gaffe. I mean, I hate the dufus, but I find the explanation too clever NOT to be true. Could he really have intended to slam the troops, but then upon getting caught, turn it into a plausible Bush-is-dumb joke? C'mon! That'd be impressively nimble politicking, which we know Kerry to be incapable of.

Has anyone been able to check and see if Kerry has used this illustration in other recent college appearances?

Since politicians so often rely on another form of a "stump speech" as they tour for other candidates, there may be a version of what he "meant" to say already out there. . .

It was reported about 90 minutes ago that Kerry has cancelled all of his Wednesday's appearances, including with Bob Casey in PA. I'm sorry for Santorum - he would have riden a photo of Kerry and Casey together into a horserace.

Could he really have intended to slam the troops, but then upon getting caught, turn it into a plausible Bush-is-dumb joke? C'mon! That'd be impressively nimble politticking, which we know Kerry to be incapable of.

Not true. Kerry has nimble nuance. Say it all with me now: I voted for it before I voted against it.

Senator "I won't take any crap from those who haven't worn the uniform" Kerry, Meet the Press, December 4, 2005:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the—of—the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

Wow, you guys are working this as hard as you can, but to people on the "outside" of this game, it's going to end up looking like Kerry was making fun of Bush for not being very bright and, apparently, Bush wasn't bright enough to understand that the insult was aimed at him. Otherwise, they'll think he did get the joke, but decided to lie about it. Kerry went to college and volunteered to go to fight in a war, so your "interpretations" here are not credible. By the way, Kerry attacked the troops that were committing atrocities in Viet Nam, not the other, non-evil ones. There is a difference, you know. Is it ever patriotic to let anyone, anywhere, get away with committing atrocities? Was it then? Is it now? Is it Christian? Just some stuff to think about...

“Senator Kerry owes an apology to the thousands of men and women serving in Iraq, particularly the many patriotic soldiers from Massachusetts who come from all backgrounds to defend our freedoms. As Governor, I represent thousands of Massachusetts National Guardsmen. They are more diverse, educated and prepared to do their job than at anytime in our country’s history. No matter where you went to school, or how many degrees you have, most people understand the strength of our nation comes from every corner of America.”

1. If Kerry was trying to tell a joke then who on earth would have laughed at it? What campaign advisor would have signed off on it and told Kerry it was a real belly-splitter?

No. It's not believable.

Sorry but Kerry has made a career of bashing American soldiers. If that weren't the case then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But not with his past behavior nor with the extremely clear statements he made on video.

Frankly the very silly arguments being made in an attempt at defending the indefensible is amusing, but not effective.

Oh and the reason why a lot of different people got the same impression? Because it's the logical impression to get from Kerry's remarks.

So repeat after me: conservatives and Republicans do not get their talking points every morning.

2. Bush doesn't read newspapers?

@ Doyle

I think I should help you out by mentioning that Bush gets daily briefings by intelligence officers. I'd suggest that's a bit more detailed and comprehensive than most newspapers. Which generally are little more than regurgitated Reuters and AP.

3. Most liberals don't understand the competition there is for promotions and the impact a relevant degree has on the prospect of promotions. Even in enlisted ranks it's much harder to get promoted beyond E-6 without at least a bachelor's degree.

In addition there's so much high tech involved with today's military that they cannot accept dysfunctional recruits. Frankly a lot of liberals are working off their ideas of the military from pre-1980. When I was a USMC infantryman in 1982 my platoon sgt was functionally illiterate. A sitution that could not possibly happen today.

I can believe that Kerry meant the lame Bush joke. It has his brand of tepid, forced humor delivered painfully slowly in the tone of great wisdom. But unfortunately, he came out with a perfectly grammatical sentence that does insult the troops. It expresses a meme that some on the left express, and which the listener could plausibly suspect Kerry of having. So why the overwrought rhetoric at the press conference? The people attacking him can't read his mind. They responded to what he said.

What Kerry should do is explain the mistake, take his lumps for a couple of days, and let the whole thing blow over. Because he's Kerry, he'll go into some narcissistic tantrum and blame people for believing their own ears.

One stupid remark by John Kerry is not going to make these conservatives suddenly forget all the Republican scandals, all the Republican financial mismanagement, and all the Republican negligence in providing oversight of Bush’s war.

I'm a conservative:

1. What scandals?

Foley? The sex scandal with no actual sex? Cunningham? He's in jail now, what about Jefferson of the $90k? Ney? He's resigned. Delay? He resigned and I frankly think that prosecution is utter crap.

I'm not voting Republican because of their idiot lack of enforcement of our laws against illegal aliens. If Bush didn't have a burr up his rectum over legalising illegal aliens I'd be out there banging the drum for Republicans.

2. Financial mismangement?

What? I'm to believe that Democrats won't be worse in their excessive spending?

Put down the crack pipe please.

3. Oversight of Bush's war?

Frankly this is so incredibly silly it's not even worth a comment.

4. And in case this comes up, since so many liberals seem to equate conservative with Christian.

I'm an Animist.

Which means all the usual idiot rhetorical uses of the Bible by liberals are utterly without value to me. So please hold the "what would Jesus do" nonsense. I frankly don't particularly care what he'd do.

Of course Mitt Romney is going to denounce Kerry. He's running for President in 2008 and McCain is already out of the gate. It will be interesting to see if any Democrats, e.g., Ford, McCaskill, or Webb, denounce Kerry.

I will grant that Kerry mean to tell a joke about Bush, but that's not how it came out. Especially when seen on the video, it really comes out as a slam against the troops. Given his "Winter Soldier" attitude (more on that later) this slip of the tongue is, for me, rather telling.

That aside, I think he could have stood and apologized with a simple sentence--no non-apologetic "I'm sorry, but..." nonsense. (Am I the only one who finds qualified apologies rather bogus?)

Instead, he stood and lost his mind. Yes, what he said will resonate with the Bush-hating left, but it will alienate everyone else. Beyond the fact that his speech was redundant and poorly delivered, he was being a complete hypocrite. As previously pointed out, he made his career claiming that the military was composed of baby killers, top-to-bottom. Worse, in just the last few weeks, he's made several derogatory remarks about the military. In other words, this fits into a well documented pattern of behavior. It appears John Kerry really does have contempt for the members of the armed forced of this country and the military in general.

All else aside, Kerry just assured the end of his national political career. He is unelectable to national public office.

If that wasn't enough, the various self-identified Democrats on the news not only refused to criticize Kerry, but criticized anyone who did as being naive and disloyal. I was dumbfounded; do Democrats really think Kerry is the future of their party? As a conservative, I hope so, but for my own sanity, I dearly hope not.

And then you have Rangel completely losing his mind as well, but that's a different story. All, in all, the bulk of the Democrats running should be damn glad election is only a week away else they could completely self-destruction before then. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to watch them do it in office.

Doyle: If Democrats despised the troops, they wouldn't be criticizing the Iraq War.

I agree with Fenrisulven on this one. Many Democrats of Kerry's ilk don't give a rats ass about the military or the deaths in Iraq. They think the soldiers are stupid idiots on a march of folly and deserve their own demise. They only complain about it to get political traction from people who do care.

Kerry is one of these Democrats. Remember, he was despised by all his fellow officers in Vietnam, most who came out against him with the Swift Boat campaign. IN fact I do not recall a similar instance in politics where so many co-workers of a candidate came out publicly against the candidate willing to risk career and reputation to call the candidate a fraud.

With such a notorious track record for sliming the troops I find it a stretch from posters such as Elizabeth and Doyle to buy into the argument that the statement was a joke directed at Bush.

Garrrrry: Wow, you guys are working this as hard as you can, but to people on the "outside" of this game, it's going to end up looking like Kerry was making fun of Bush for not being very bright and, apparently, Bush wasn't bright enough to understand that the insult was aimed at him.

Nope. The people "outside this game" are already on record - they believe Kerry was slamming our troops. Given that Kerry has slammed our troops so many times in the past, its not an unreasonable assumption.

By the way, Kerry attacked the troops that were committing atrocities in Viet Nam, not the other, non-evil ones. There is a difference, you know.

Thats a lie. He made general unspecified allegations against all troops in Nam. Said it was commonplace. Admitted he participated. But according to the congressional record, the only war criminal Kerry outed by name was himself:

"These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam"

Is it ever patriotic to let anyone, anywhere, get away with committing atrocities? Was it then? Is it now? Is it Christian? Just some stuff to think about...

Here's another, Kerry is a confessed war criminal, under oath. Is it ever patriotic to let anyone, anywhere, get away with comitting atrocities? Why do you support and defend a confessed war criminal?

Truth is, Kerry made it all up, just like his "Christmas in Cambodia" hoax. When he got out he saw which way the wind was blowing with the anti-war movement and decided that falsely accusing his mates of war crimes was the best way to vault into a political seat. He's a fraud, and anyone who would defend him is his fool.

Blue Texan: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." - Senator John Kerry

Ann, you're the liar. You know NOTHING of the sort.

Thats the revised line, the one Kerry CLAIMS he meant to say. But if that were true, he would have immediately apologized without equivocation or evasion. He's a lair and a fraud.

"And let me add that Kerry is outrageously lying when he says he wasn't referring to the troops. "

And, as this thread and many others across the blogosphere show, and many talking heads shows demonstrate, the supporters of the Democratic party are either outrageously lying ("I'm sorry, Ann, but he was obviously referring to Bush") or mind-numbingly gullible and dim.

Yet, people might go into the booth next week and pull the lever to give them more power.

I sure do love the smell of moronic brownshirt fucks crapping in their pants. You know, this idea that conservative are all freaking out because Republicans might lose is ludicrous. The fact is, most of the one's I've seen are pretty resigned, with a heavy dose of "it's their own fault for betraying conservative principles and poor management". So, you really don't know what you're talking about.

But if that were true, he would have immediately apologized without equivocation or evasion. He's a lair and a fraud. Unless he's trying to pull the clinton faux anger thing. Which he's just not good enough to do. What he Actually Said was a huge insult. He should have said, "I absolutley did not mean to say that. What I meant to say was X. Our troops are the best in the world, etc..etc...etc...". Instead he started ranting nonsense about Tony freaking Snow of all people!

Elizabeth said..."'I know exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of thing that antiwar people say, that the volunteer military is full of unfortunate, deluded souls.' I have to disagree, Ann....I can't know Kerry's motivations, but I sure can say that opposing this war is not synonymous with patronizing or despising our armed forces."

I'm not saying all people opposed to the Iraq war have this idea, but this is an often-expressed belief characteristic of the left.

And I'm totally not buying the botched joke theory. The joke is obviously constructed after the fact to try to explain the horrible statement. It would not have been written in the form that Kerry is claiming, which is why I say he's outrageously lying. It's a lie, because it's not true, and it's outrageous because it's on its face unbelievable. It makes no sense to say that if the students in the room don't get a good education, they will tend to become President and then make unfortunate mistakes as President. And there's no relevant background understanding that the Iraq war decisions came from a failure to get an education. The neocon ideas that led to the war were not the ideas of uneducated people who didn't study, but intellectuals with ideas that weren't realistic enough. The joke Kerry claims he meant to tell simply doesn't resonate properly with the things he would have meant to criticize.

Someone wrote: "I think it's all just a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse, Sean Hannity, and the entire right blogosphere's version of the events are exactly the same."

LOL! As if Rush and Sean and I got on a conference call and plotted it. It's just a matter of reading plain English. Only if you're looking for an alternate reading do you have to get together beforehand.

Edward said "People who vote against one of the many good Democratic candidates due to a stupid remark by John Kerry are only hurting themselves."

People aren't that stupid. The reason for letting Kerry's one remark affect one's thinking is that it's a hint or reminder that there is a real Democratic Party attitude that's soft on national security, that's being actively hidden through the campaign, but that will be seen if the Democrats take power.

Dave: "I sure do love the smell of moronic brownshirt fucks crapping in their pants. You pricks are toast. Deal with it."

Toast doesn't wear pants. Or a shirt. Pricks don't wear shirts or even pants, depending on how you think about it. And pricks as toast? That's one crazy recipe. Dave, I can't even deal with your metaphors.

It's a lie, because it's not true, and it's outrageous because it's on its face unbelievable. It makes no sense to say that if the students in the room don't get a good education, they will tend to become President and then make unfortunate mistakes as President. And there's no relevant background understanding that the Iraq war decisions came from a failure to get an education. The neocon ideas that led to the war were not the ideas of uneducated people who didn't study, but intellectuals with ideas that weren't realistic enough.

I would add that it wasn't soley Bush [or his advisors] that led us to liberate Iraq. The "joke" makes even less sense.

Kerry doesn't get the benefit of doubt because he's actually lied so many times before - Winter Soldier, Christmas in Cambodia, etc.

He should have said, "I absolutley did not mean to say that. What I meant to say was X. Our troops are the best in the world, etc..etc...etc...".

He can't do that. He has a history of sliming the troops. His "winter soldier" treachery has finally come back to bite him.

Whats even funnier, is that for all the jokes about Bush gaffes, its Kerry's that may do the most damage. I think the base will now show up on election day.

Sidenote re "net time" vs "MSM time": FOX this AM talking about how Kerry still plans to make the rounds today, ignorant that Kerry cancelled all today's appearances last night. Even Kerry's Dem defender was behind the infromation curve. Thats why I love the net.

Aside from his propensity to repeatedly say stupid things that hurt the democrats, he has a looooong record of denigrating the military.The fact that he was in the military means nothing. He was simply trying to enhance his political future--and later, when he thought it might be useful, he was more than eager to testify against his fellow soldiers.

Hmm, for Kerry to have meant GWB as the target of his lazy, bad grades leading to being stuck in Iraq is certainly a plausible reading. Realy, realy badly executed.

But for a person who graduted with a Bachelors and a Masters from Ivy league schools to be considered ill-educated, who skated through without trying is saying something about Ivy League schools... (I wonder how Al Gore feels about thatm seeing as he had...err...isssues finishing the second degree)

Kerry has a history of disrespect towards our military, despite his service, so it is perfectly reasonable to believe he was talking about the troops and not Bush.

You have to remember who his audience was - liberal college students who love to talk a good game but who might or might not get out of bed and vote on election day. I would say his remarks were all about making them feel superior so they would go out and vote.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, it will have the opposite affect and get more Republicans out to vote.

"Kerry to have meant GWB as the target of his lazy, bad grades leading to being stuck in Iraq is certainly a plausible reading"

No, it is not. Because it would have meant that Kerry was saying that if you study you can do well, and if not you can be President.

Which is kind of funny, since Kerry wanted to be President. And because Kerry's grades were worse than Bush's. So maybe Kerry does think that is the way to get to the White House, despite the fact that it did not work for him.

No, the attempts to say that Kerry did not mean what he said are ludicrous.

the funniest thing is that george bush never responded to Kerry's other accusations; in light of the release of the transcript of what were his prepared remarks, if you read the complete story, Kerry's assertions about mismanagement and people debating straw men is pretty accurate. Bush didn't address Kerry's concerns about his philosophy; he seized on a 2004 candidate butchering prepared remark (which is pretty clear from the video; you have that case where a speaker has notes in front of him, but is trying to pretend that they are not looking at them, when they really are, and in the few moments they aren't looking, they go badly off script)

If the Administration really cared about keeping their philosophy in fighting the war on terror, and not having a democratic controlled congress change that philosophy, they should have discussd his theories as representative of his fellow Democrats, rather than pounce on a mangled joke. But debating philosophies doesn't seem to work in politics nowadays, especially when nobody agrees with your philosophy, and you gradually change the rhetoric from stay the course to something else even though you claim you don't look at poll numbers. So I guess you turn to using right wing blong swarms to energize a base as the best tactic to win electons.

Principled conservatives used to despised the increase in innefficient government, (Medicare Part D) and hated the fact that foreigners controlled our destiny by financing our debt, but sadly, those who call themselves principled conservatives nowadays rely on mangled jokes to win elections, rather than promoting their own philosophy. I guess its obvious you have to do that when peole think your philosophy has led to catastrophic success.

I always say, you know people think you are stupid if they keep lying to you, thinking you will never figure out the truth:

It reminds of the Bush and the RNC pamphlets sent in West Virginia and Arkansas saying THOSE LIBERALS WILL BAN THE BIBLE, or those push poll calls in Tennessee, Ohio, and Virginia asking if you would support a candidate, who "promotes research on unborn babies." But what can you expect of principled conservatives nowadays. I wonder if they even realize that some of the money they donate to the RNC, goes to legal fees of defending an individual accused in a New Hampshire phone jamming scandal. Hmm.. did the moderate blogger Althosue ever post about that story?

You can keep repeating that the Democrats are soft on security, or don't support the troops, but its becoming more and more like the boy who cried wolf, and poll numbers clearly indicate that vast majority of American's don't buy it anymore.

Keep drinking the kool aid though; it's a guaranteed right under the US Constitution.

Oh.. Althouse, did this energize you to go out and vote in Wisconsin for the Republican candidate?

I think Elizabeth had the most cogent take on this: Kerry tried to make a generic ha-ha-look-at-stupid-Bush joke, and flubbed it, badly. He and the D.'s would be best served by a graceful apology, but if he did that, he wouldn't be the Lurch we know and love.

"You can keep repeating that the Democrats are soft on security, or don't support the troops>"

Why should we have to do this when the Dems are saying so themselves?

"He and the D.'s would be best served by a graceful apology"True, but unlikely to happen. Expecting a graceful gesture from Kerry is like expecting a graceful move from a brontosaurus. The armor plate of his self-importance is too much of an impediment.

"He insulted the troops!" "No, he was trying to insult the President and his stupid war."

Oh, whatever. It's not like Kerry didn't vote to authorize the President to deal with Iraq using any means he saw fit. If it was intellectual laziness that led to the invasion, what exactly was it that led to the affirming vote? And please, don't insult yourself by saying Kerry was "lied to" or "misled" - that's a crock of crap. He's solely responsible for his vote, and his claims of having voted in ignorance do no more to defend him than his claims to have been trying to insult the President. Neither of those are the actions of an honorable leader.

And this is the man that was considered "electable." It's funny: I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I was all "Anybody but Bush," right up until Senator-for-life Kerry reported for duty. Even as a more-or-less Conservative, I would have voted for Lieberman.

What? I'm to believe that Democrats won't be worse in their excessive spending?

Let's see. What party controlled the Executive Branch the last time the budget was balanced? I think a split government will (would?) be great for reducing the outrageous spending that's plagued Washington for the entirety of the Bush Administration.

Kerry's gaffe and the No Apology that compounded it is revealing in another way: by rights they should easily sweep both houses of Congress. The GOP has basically given it away. And yet, the Democrat campaign strategy has been feeble and mismanaged. There's talk amoung Dems of another round of purges if they fail yet again to capitalize on GOP mistakes.

Taking all that into account, why on earth should America trust Dems with National Security strategy? They can't even defend their own interests, much less America's.

You can count on Kerry to show us all how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

My local House race Democrat Tim Walz just cancelled his rally where Kerry was to appear. No comment was offered, however.

"After 24 years in the Army National Guard, Command Sergeant Major Walz retired from the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in the spring of 2005. Prior to retiring, Walz served overseas with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."

Sorry if this has benn said repeatedly in the previous and unread 152 comments, but the allegation that Kerry is speaking of anything other than the Cheney-Rumsfield-Bush triumvirate is pure Rovian calumny.

MadisonMan,OK, balanced budget accomplished by what? Cuts in entitlement spending did the trick. How many Democrats are running on that idea? NONE Like supporting the troops, Democrats speak in empty platitudes, no honesty, just spin for power.

Kerry's comments were demeaning to the troops. He simply got caught being the snide Kerry. He loathes the US military, always has. To he and his fellow leftists, the US military reflects the strength of US capitalism, the true enemy. John Kerry said, "communism is just another form of government to provide for the felt needs of people." Wrong on communism, wrong on radical Islam.

The neocon ideas that led to the war were not the ideas of uneducated people who didn't study, but intellectuals with ideas that weren't realistic enough.

Maybe the ideas were not realistic... but history is not over yet. The only thing currently fact is that the battle still rages in Iraq. No one has won or lost definatively. What is also true is that there are democrats (small D) in Iraq among the Baathists, the terrorists and the fundamentalists. No matter what you say about the state of things in Iraq, the democrats still have the upper hand - they currently control most of the army, and the oil, and have near total control in 15 of 18 provinces. They are not going to give that up because things are tough in parts of Baghdad and Anbar Province. The supply of money and arms to the bad guys in Iraq is not unlimited... they will tire too - if it is a battle of attrition and you wanted to be on the side of the survivor... which side would you pick?

The battle for freedom in the middle-east will be a long struggle, just as it was and is in other places around the globe. We should support that struggle. SO far our costs in Iraq are miniscule compared to the still potential result of a free and stable government in the middle east and are miniscule compared to other conflicts in American history. We need to stick by our initial decision to go to war and by our men and women in the field and finish the war.

Can we be confident that the Democratic party will support the struggle?

sloanasaurus,Well said. The peace dividend from success in the Middle East would dwarf that of the Cold War. It will empower free market capitalism at the expense of leftist world government. Neo-con is shorthand for Jew.

As a retired military dumbass I just shrugged off Kerry's remark when I first heard it. It's nothing new for him. Since the 70s he's hated the military. When his peers in Coastal Division 11 didn't support his 'JFK II' version of his three months in combat that sealed his hatred.

Every now and then he lets his true opinion of the military slip with some remark about our people terrorizing women and children or some such.

It was not the 'botched joke' that bothered me nearly as much as the long winded crazed speech he gave yesterday trying to blame Bush for Kerry's stupidity.

Would it have killed the man to have at least given the standard political 'I'm sorry if you were offended' non-apology?

Did he need act like a hysterical teenage girl who didn't make cheerleader?

Kerrry's diatribe was the most cringe worthy thing I've heard in years.

To think that this hollow shell of a man was almost President! It makes my blood run cold.

If he'd been making off-the-cuff comments, I could buy that Kerry meant it about the troops, but no one is that tone deaf. The line was written into the speech to be about GWB. Of this I'm certain. The problem Kerry has is that he is already perceived as having an extraordinarily condescending attitude toward our troops. It doesn't matter whether me meant the Bush or the troops, because either one is consistent with his history. He's not paying for saying something stupid yesterday so much as paying for a pattern of elitism over the last several years.

Maybe, but the greater problem is that Kerry's remarks remind people what the Left really thinks of our sons and daughters serving in the military. Via Hanson at NRO:

"The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists."

The line was written into the speech to be about GWB. Of this I'm certain.

How can you be certain this was the case? His introduction to his remarks on education were something along the lines of, "I hadn't planned on saying this, but...." That would seem to indicate that he was speaking off the cuff (or his speech writers wanted him to look like he was speaking off the cuff).

''I'm sorry he did what he did. But I think the issue ... we want to make sure it doesn't confuse the subject of the war in Iraq,'' Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, running for Senate in Maryland, said on CNN.

I'm sure no one is reading at this point. Butm Madison Man: come on! You are one of my favorite, thoughtful liberals. Surely, you know that the legislature controls the purse. The Republicans in Congress beginning in 1994 had much more to do with a balanced budget than did President Clinton. Having said that, both played their parts. Having said that, these Republicans need to learn fiscal restraint. Having said that, I think Democrats in Congress generally cannot learn fiscal restraint.

#1: What does "Outrageously lying" mean?#2: How do you support this assertion that he was lying?#3: Does the textual context of his remarks support your assertion?#4: Do you have any clue to the context of his remarks?#5: Does the general purpose of his speech/appearance support your assertion?#6: Do you have any clue to the general purpose of his speech/appearance?#7: Do the history of his remarks (his prepared speech) support your assertion?#8: Do you have any clue to the history of his remarks?

It's funny: I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I was all "Anybody but Bush," right up until Senator-for-life Kerry reported for duty. Even as a more-or-less Conservative, I would have voted for Lieberman.Imagine what the result could have been had Lieberman been top of the ticket in 2004. Because I was at the same place you were, and then Kerry started his "reporting for duty" schtick at the convention. There went that "voting democrat" idea.

I think a split government will (would?) be great for reducing the outrageous spending that's plagued Washington for the entirety of the Bush Administration.It worked in 1994, but I think Newt deserves alot of credit for that, because he actually attempted to carry out all that stuff he ran on. Then Clinton beat him down and the next ad I saw was "grandma's going to have to eat dogfood because of mean, nasty newt and his attempts to cut the rate of increase of entitlements". As crappy as this congress has been, I just don't believe in my heart that a democratic congress will be better on this issue. I hope gridlock alone will do it, but I don't really believe.

Madison Man said: "Santorum is the absolute worst Senator Pennsylvanians have burdened themselves with in my memory. Maybe Joseph Clark was worse, given his embrace of gun control in a state where hunting is everywhere. Maybe Santorum'd be better if he actually, you know, lived in Pennsylvania. Did he ever pay back the Penn Hills School District for the money he essentially stole from them?

Not in it for the cash indeed. Pull the other one."

Madison - I live in Philly and Specter is by far the worst and that is saying a lot cause we have had a lot of mediocre senators. Santorum is far from the worst. He is being penalized because he expressed his opinions freely and the liberal media especially the Philly Inquirer made him out to be a demon. Re the school issue, much ado about nothing- are you suggesting one state (Virginia) should repy the school cost to Pennsylvania? If so, big frigging deal- it's a bookkeeping issue- the media made it out to be some kind of theft- let's face the lib MSM does not care for th etrend to home-schooling.

And the gay agenda is hot to get rid of Santorum. They hate him for his man-dog comment which was too raw of an argument for some. But, he made his point.